« Janet Stiffed Again | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- Sept. 29, 2007 »

September 28, 2007

Comments

Mexico Joe

Jubal,

Save it for the books of supporting the wrong side. I don't know if your head was stuck in the sand somewhere for a few thousand years. But this is 2007 with the internet and a media that is not willing to stand by and let girls get raped and then justify the actions as you are trying to do here. No reasonable excuse can ever be given for abuse like this under Brown and Urell! Why is it that a girl can sit in 8 depo's and Urell can't do one. I’ll tell you! He was going to spill the beans and all of them! He was going to be honest and the church attorneys could not have that! Southdown here I come! Right back were he started from! Out

Jubal

I haver also pointed out it is was wrong and against the law. Maybe you missed that.

Jubal

But at least the conversation has turned to the case in question: Jeff Andrade. He was the abuser, and yet I hardly hear a word about him.

Christopher H.

and the lord sayith "and no beans shall be spilled.

Andrade was the bad apple that fell from the cart, and the cart is full of unspilled beans. And if said beans are spilled. What is it that you are most afraid of being revealed? Will it be to big a mess to clean up, or a chance to start with a cart that holds less of a secret burden.

Who knows, maybe Urell could end up the Bishop out of all of this. And everyone can live happily ever after.

redperegrine

"I haver also pointed out it is was wrong and against the law. Maybe you missed that."

No, I caught that. But "affair"? Sounds like something that happened between two consenting adults.

Sean

the real issue at hand is when John Urell will be completing his deposition -- the one he walked out on, and which a Judge has ordered him to complete under threat of contempt

Not quite. As I've pointed out, Msgr. Urell's deposition can just as easily be taken in Canada as it can be in Orange County. All it will take is the price of an airline ticket. And perhaps a hotel room for a few nights.

From his own website:
Recently, John and his team represented 23 clients in the 2005 $100 million settlement against the Diocese of Orange for the sexual abuse of children.

Even after expenses, 40% of $100 million dollars leaves Mr. Manly with sufficient resources to accomplish a deposition in Canada.

And back to the real issue - what exactly is the relevance of the Msgr.'s deposition beyond a fishing expedition? Answer that one or don't bother answering at all.

redperegrine

Not quite Sean. What you said was that Manly could try to get a the depo completed by moving for sanctions against Urell's employer - the Diocese.

Except for the delays incurred by that motion, plus the plane rides and the hotel stays for everybody involved, I guess it would be just as easy taking the balance of the depo in Canada.

Whether or not the Urell depo is relevant is up to a judge to decide - I'm not a lawyer, or a judge (or psychiatrist, or mindreader).

Christopher H.

Sean, I'm sure Manly would, except that Urell isn't accepting any visitors at this fragile point of his recovery, let alone a team of lawyers and stenographers and videographers etc..

I'm sure that anything that intense would only be a setback and not in the best interest of their patient, and would not be allowed by the CEO of Southdown. He is an "inpatient" meaning his doctor's decide who he comes in contact with, not the lawyers. His well being comes first over any pending court case.

I suggest you put Urell on your prayer list that he might make a full recovery and able to participate fully in the future.. maybe when all of this is over.

Sean

Msgr. Urell is in my prayers that he makes a full recovery. I miss my pastor. My family could have used his love and support recently, but have had to get by as best we could in trying times without it. Thankfully Msgr. Urell has developed a wonderful parish life full of extraordinary people who have been able in some measure to fill the void left by his absence.

As for not accepting visitors, that's really not an excuse. Here's how it works: Mr. Manly stated he has made a motion to compel Msgr. Urell's deposition, which was granted. Now all he needs to do is go forward with the deposition, after properly renoticing the date pursuant to the court's order of course. If the Diocese does not produce Msgr. Urell for the deposition, then Mr. Manly simply makes a record of non-appearance, certified by the reporter, and proceeds with sanctions.

Of course, if it is doctors' orders that are preventing the deposition at this time, it might be difficult to obtain sanctions.

Bottom line: nobody has said why Msgr. Urell, who was not involved in investigating non-clergy, is even necessary to this case. And no, redperegrine, I'm not asking you. You don't know, so stay out of it.

What we know so far is this:

Mr. Manly stated that he did not need to complete Msgr. Urell's deposition. (at least, I have not seen this denied by Mr. Manly anywhere, as I'm fairly certain he would have done if he never made such a statement);

Several weeks after Msgr. Urell's depo was called off, he went to Southdown;

Only after Msgr. Urell left did his deposition suddenly become the crux of a case in which the attacker admitted guilt;

There is only one good reason for pursuing the deposition of the person in charge of investigating abuse committed by non-clergy, to obtain the necessary evidence for punitive damages. Performing discovery into knowledge and/or acts that qualify for punitive damages is standard. What makes this situation different is the disconnect between Msgr. Urell's duties and the abuse in this case. Msgr. did not investigate the type of claim at issue in the instant litigation.

The abuse that occurred in the Catholic Church is vile. The subsequent cover-up by those in positions of authority is beyond the pale. I am disgusted by the breach of faith committed by people who we should have been able to trust, as is every Catholic with whom I have ever discussed this issue. I want priests who committed these atrocities defrocked and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - shortage of vocations be damned. Thank God for the trial attorneys brave enough to pull back the curtain on this horrible activity within the Church. That took courage, especially given the number of faithful and loyal Catholics they were certainly going to shock and offend with their initial accusations. A great Evil was exposed within the Church. An Evil that cannot withstand the light of day. With the cloak of secrecy removed, that Evil will wither and die. With continued faith in God, and the Church He founded, both the Church and her people will flourish again.

The Church is also filled with wonderful priests, religious, and laity who dedicate their lives to God, bringing His Gospel to everyone, and helping those in need - physical or spiritual. While the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit it is, unfortunately, administered day-to-day by mere mortals subject to all the shortcomings found in everyone. The abuse that has been perpetrated on the victims has also been indirectly perpetrated on the good and faithful priests, religious, and laity who comprise the Church.

What really bothers me is the broad brush used to paint the Church. Yes, bad acts have been performed. No, not everything that happens in the Church is nefarious. As parishioners at St. Norbert, my wife and I witnessed the steady decline of Msgr. Urell in the weeks before his trip to Southdown. You can rest assured that he is in our prayers, as is every victim of abuse.

It is disturbing to see the venomous joy with which people hurl accusations at the Church. While it may seem that those of us standing up for Msgr. Urell are anti-victim, we are not. We just understand that the Church is not evil, evil was perpetrated by a few within the Church.

What is worse is how Msgr. Urell is being portrayed in the media. This appears in large part to be the fault of Mr. Manly, who began this whole fiasco with the statement that Msgr. Urell's deposition was not necessary (please Mr. Manly, correct me if you did not make such a statement). Given such a statement by Mr. Manly, why shouldn't Msgr. Urell be allowed to seek treatment at Southdown?

Frankly, what upsets me most about this situation is what appears to be nothing more than gamesmanship playing itself out not only in the courtroom, but the media. Unless the statement that Msgr. Urell's deposition does not need to be concluded is repudiated, and the alleged pressing need for this deposition is explained, the castigation of Msgr. Urell, and the Disocese for allowing him to seek treatment, occurring in the press must stop immediately. Absent such explanations, or the cessation of the media circus, criticisms of Mr. Manly and what appear to be his highly questionable (to put it mildly, and politely) tactics will continue to abound.

One last thought on the topic. Those of you who are rising up with torches and pitchforks against Msgr. Urell should hold off judging him until you have walked in his shoes. Dedicate your life to something, then discover your colleagues - and perhaps your friends - are using the thing to which you have dedicated your life for evil. On top of that shock, horror, and pain, now conduct investigations of those colleagues and explore the depths of their sinister acts. If that isn't enough to cause you great mental, emotional, and spiritual pain then you should ask your alien masters to reprogram you with human emotions.

redperegrine

Urell didn't just "investigate." Apparently he also hid the truth from the authorities (you're a lawyer, right? Isn't that some kind of a crime - aiding and abetting, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, something?)and played pass the ped with the bad eggs.

Some people might find his current residence among priestly pedophiles to be nothing but divine (or maybe cosmic)justice.

Not me. I'm just waiting to hear a believable reason for the Canadian junket. You want me to "stay out of it"? Then ask Jubal to stop posting on the subject.

Sean

You're free to spew your views, they just add nothing to the conversation. You said yourself Whether or not the Urell depo is relevant is up to a judge to decide - I'm not a lawyer, or a judge (or psychiatrist, or mindreader).

Since you can't add anything to the discussion of just why Mr. Manly is beating the drums for Msgr. Urell's deposition, after stating that he didn't need the deposition, all you do is create noise. But hey, that's what the Constitution guarantees so have at it if you must.

Apparently he also ... another pillar of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I refer you to your first quote.

I'm just waiting to hear a believable reason for the Canadian junket.

You've been given a very good reason for Msgr. Urell's trip to Southdown. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your prerogative. Me? I'm just waiting for a plausible explanation of why Mr. Manly is creating/allowing/exploiting media hype of Msgr.'s visit to Southdown after saying he doesn't need the deposition. I note, again, that nobody is denying Mr. Manly made that statement.

redperegrine

I'm not "spewing" anything. I'm just curious how he got away from fininshing his depo and when he's going to finish; and no, the explanation from Urell's lawyer is not particularly credible to me - but of course I'm not a part of the Diocesan Noise Machine.

I don't know why Manly wanted to depose Urell. But he did. It's Urell's responsibility to show up.

BTW, I used the word "apparently" because I haven't seen the corroborating documents - but they have been seen and reported on by Arellano - who has yet to be sued by the Diocese for libel. So I'm pretty confident in their veracity. If they are true then... aw, forget it.

redperegrine

According to Gustavo Arellano a September deposition of former Bishop McFarland produced a surprise - his policy document from 1994:

"Any person who believes that he or she (or one's child) is or has been a victim of sexual misconduct by any member of the clergy or other employee of the Diocese of Orange should immediately report the allegation to the Diocese. Generally the person to contact is the Chancellor at the Diocesan Office in Marywood Center. The Chancellor will make appropriate arrangements with the party either in person or by telephone to enable the commencement of a factual investigation."

The Chancellor at the time of the Andrade crime was Urell. This seems to make him a relevant witness.

observer

Gustavo is hardly a credible source.(I know, I've asked a Mexican). I have read some of the depositions available to the public such as bishop brown's which was online at the Register. I find that the media hype is vastly different from what is actually in the depositions. It is easy to take a small snippet from a deposition and, out of context, imply something that in reality it doesn't say. As to the diocese "noise" machine -- the diocese isn't booking themselves on every radio and tv show that will have them. I laugh when Manly continues to quote the OC weekly as if it were a real newspaper. He's got the media all riled up but I would not confuse the diocese' silence with acceptance.

redperegrine

Gustavo is a lot more credible than the Diocese. I don't think he's making this stuff up. Why would he risk a defamation suit, especially when all the records come from the Diocese itself.

The latest dope comes from Bishop McFarland himself.

As to what is a "real newspaper" - I find that the Weekly is more credible than the MSM who won't touch anything controversial with a ten-foot pole.

observer

Gustavo makes it up regularly, or forgets those details that don't conform to his thesis

HID Kit

Awesome nice post.Thanks for information.

moncler jackets sweden

Thanks, I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories